The Law Society of Singapore v VCS Vardan
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Karthigesu JA |
| Judgment Date | 03 March 1999 |
| Neutral Citation | [1999] SGHC 55 |
| Docket Number | Originating Summons No 1777 of 1998 |
| Date | 03 March 1999 |
| Published date | 19 September 2003 |
| Year | 1999 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Aziz Tayabali (Aziz Tayabali & Associates) |
| Citation | [1999] SGHC 55 |
| Defendant Counsel | Respondent absent |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Subject Matter | Show cause action,ss 83(1), 83(2)(a), 83(2)(b), 94A & 98(1)Legal Profession Act,Legal Profession,Respondent convicted of criminal offence under s 406 of Penal Code (Cap 224),s 406 Penal Code (Cap 224),Appropriate penalty |
(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): On 12 February 1999 we ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. We now give our reasons for doing so.
2.The respondent was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore on 10 October 1984 and was at all material times practising under the name and style of VCS Vardan & Co, a sole proprietorship.
3.Sometime in or about April 1998, the DPP, Commercial Affairs Department, received information that the respondent had made unauthorised withdrawals of clients` moneys. Upon investigations, it was revealed that from 8 January 1997 to 19 July 1997, the respondent, while practising as an advocate and solicitor at VCS Vardan & Co, had made various unauthorised withdrawals of clients` funds from the clients` account of the law firm, namely, funds maintained in DBS Bank No 007-007342-9.
4.During that time, the respondent was the authorised signatory of, and was entrusted with dominion over, the funds held in the clients` account. In all, the respondent dishonestly misappropriated a total of S$107,224.05 from the clients` account by making unauthorised withdrawals. The funds withdrawn were used to, inter alia, pay staff salaries and central provident fund contributions, his income tax, office rental and other expenses.
5.Before commencement of investigations by the Commercial Affairs Department, the respondent had made full restitution of the funds withdrawn from these clients` accounts.
6.The DPP proceeded with criminal prosecution against the respondent in the subordinate courts, Singapore on one amended charge. The amended charge read as follows:
You, Venkata Chari Srinivasa Vardan (M/58 years) NRIC No 0381074/G are charged that you, from 8 January 1997 to 19 July 1997, in Singapore, committed the offence of criminal breach of trust in that you, being at the material time a practising Advocate and Solicitor in Singapore and the sole proprietor of the law firm of M/s VCS Vardan & Co (`the said firm`), and entrusted with dominion over clients` funds held in the clients` accounts of the same firm, namely, the funds in DBS Bank Account No 007-007342-9 dishonestly misappropriated a total of $107,224.05 from those funds, comprised in the cheques particularised in the appendix to this charge, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 406 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).
7.The respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei Fen
...... gave their mandate for the settlement of the claim and that no loss was ultimately caused to anyone.In relation to the charge of cheating, the authorities are legion in which solicitors have been struck off the rolls for mis-applying clients` moneys: see eg, Law Society of Singapore v VCS Vardan [1999] 2 SLR 229 ; Re Loke Edward (Unreported) and Re Ong Patrick (Unreported) . The courts have taken a stern view of solicitors who misplace the trust reposed in them by their clients, many of whom deposit not inconsiderable amounts of money with their much-trusted legal advisers. We were ......
-
The Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence
......The interests of the legal profession and the public demand that members of the profession observe the highest possible standards of conduct. By failing to adhere to these standards, the respondent had caused harm to the profession as a whole: Law Society of Singpore v VCS Vardan [1999] 2 SLR 229 at [para ] 14.In our view, there were no mitigating circumstances which merited a less severe penalty. The fact that the offence was not committed in the respondent`s professional capacity was of no mitigating value, there being no requirement that the offence be connected in ......
-
Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing
......In his written submissions, he stated that he regretted `taking up the Law Society`s time` and `letting down the profession with his carelessness and complacency`. The recent Court of Three Judges` decision of Law Society of Singapore v VCS Vardan [1999] 2 SLR 229 sheds some light on the issue of mitigation. In that case, the respondent had been convicted of criminal breach of trust under s 406 of the Penal Code. The Court of Appeal upheld the penalty of striking off despite the mitigating circumstances and observed: . . ......
-
The Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick
...... advocate and solicitor to be a member of the profession are wide-ranging, and the cases are legion in which advocates and solicitors have been struck off the roll or suspended from practice after convictions of offences involving dishonesty and fraud: see, eg Law Society of Singapore v VCS Vardan [1999] 2 SLR 229 (making unauthorised withdrawals of clients` funds from clients` account amounting to $107,224.05 - convicted under s 406 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) and sentenced to six months` imprisonment); Law Society of Singapore v Lau See-Jin Jeffrey , supra (entered into an ......